Condom Not?

Newspapers and the Internet have been abuzz with Pope Benedict XVI’s leaked proclamation that condoms may be useful for male prostitutes in preventing the spread of AIDS. Many are astonished, and not a few heads have been scratched at the declaration from the stalwart bastion of “sex is only for procreation” Christianity. The announcement, while humanitarian, is deeply troubling. From ancient times it was recognized that human sexual behavior had more than procreational importance. The matter has been investigated by psychologists since the nineteenth century and the same conclusion was drawn: people engage in sexual practices for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the church has been holding out with a Hebrew Bible viewpoint enhanced by the personal outlook of Paul.

In the ancient world, the microscopic world of reproduction was unknown. What was actually happening in conception was misunderstood. Judeo-Christian sexual mores were based on faulty information, from a biological point of view. In such a view, the all-potent male gamete (inappropriately called “seed,” as if a womb were just a place for pre-formed humans to grow) was capable of producing life on its own. Reading a handful of Greek myths will demonstrate this principle nicely (since the Bible has a more demure and blushing way of discussing the idea). The concomitant concept that seed should not be wasted led to the faulty idea that, in the unforgettable words of Monty Python, “every sperm is sacred.” That mental construct has been used by the church to make women subservient to their biology in a way that never applied to males. The Pope’s declaration underscores this double standard.

If male prostitutes may use condoms with the church’s blessing to prevent the spread of AIDS, the only motivation left for heterosexual birth control is female control. The “lost cause” of male reproductive potential in male prostitutes does not apply in heterosexual unions? God holds married couples to a different standard than male prostitutes – why? Is the sperm in these two cases unequal? The Pope is undoubtedly on the right track by endorsing the use of condoms, but the church still has a profound distance to go before it can look women in the eye and say, “we believe you are truly equal with men.” Oh yes, and not blink while saying it.

Remember, these guys lost to the Greeks...

5 thoughts on “Condom Not?

  1. Henk van der Gaast

    In the words of the Australian icon of “how to ugly and ugly at the same time”, the great Doug Mulray; “Vatican Express, I always carry one (jingle of pope singing)”whackey do whackey do whackey do”..

    As history always show, you can be a famous cynic for a few hours longer than Andy Warhol ever gave us.

    Mind you, It was French rugby union that proved that a Condom could be a “Fly Half”‘.

    All this irreverence was started by who dear Steve?

    Like

  2. rey

    Why would the pope even care about male prostitutes? Isn’t prostitution a sin to being with? So what difference does it make in their case sin-wise?

    I suppose the pope’s concern for male prostitutes is that he doesn’t want his homosexual employees (is that the right term) giving him something that’ll be embarrassing his next doctor visit. What other possible reason could he have for being so concerned for them in particular?

    Like

  3. Henk van der Gaast

    Thanx Rey, an image I can definitely do without.

    I suppose one may look at the undertow that this subterfuge may develop. The church now has a recognition of AIDS that catholic people can take on board in non western countries.

    As you can see from Steve’s next monograph, god may be dead but its raining in pieces. Life is getting better all the time as long as you live in the right place.

    And no, I do not know where that place is.

    Like

Leave a reply to Henk van der Gaast Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.